Understanding spatial and temporal patterns of human-elephant conflict in Assam, India
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Understanding spatial and temporal patterns
of human–elephant conflict in Assam, India
SCOTT WILSON, TAMMY E. DAVIES, NANDITA HAZARIKA
and A L E X A N D R A Z I M M E R M A N N
Abstract Large-scale forest encroachment in Assam, India, Introduction
has led to increasing levels of human–elephant conflict.
Conflict mitigation is a priority for the survival of Asian
elephants Elephas maximus throughout Asia. We analysed T here is an ongoing decline in the number of Asian
elephants Elephas maximus in the wild, mainly as a
result of habitat loss and fragmentation caused by expand-
a 3-year dataset of elephant occurrence and related instances
of human–elephant conflict, from two sites in Assam, and ing human populations and associated increasing demand
explored the relationships between the various effects of for resources (Sukumar, 1989; Leimgruber et al., 2003).
elephants on human communities and factors influencing North-east India is one of the last remaining strongholds for
the spatial and temporal occurrence of these effects the Asian elephant, with an estimated population of 9,000
(proximity to water, refuge areas and villages, and human (Project Elephant Synchronized Census, 2002), but in recent
and crop density). The landscapes at both study sites have decades the region has experienced human population
been transformed by forest loss, with large areas converted growth at significantly higher rates than the global average
to agriculture. Remaining forest patches, which are mostly (Das, 2011; United Nations, 2011). In Assam this has resulted
small, disconnected and degraded, as well as tea plantations, in rapid and large-scale agricultural expansion and
provide refuge areas for elephants as they move through the associated forest loss and degradation. This has led to a
region. We found that crop depredation and property significant reduction in forest cover, escalation of human–
damage caused by elephants showed well-defined seasonal elephant conflict, and erosion of the region’s traditional
trends. They also showed a clear diurnal pattern, mostly respect for elephants (Fernando et al., 2005).
occurring between 18.00 and 22.00. Small communities Human–elephant conflict is a major threat to the future
within 700 m of a refuge were most affected. In the survival of elephants, particularly in rural agricultural
management of human–elephant conflict in Assam we need regions where human populations continue to expand and
to consider the refuge patches used by elephants as they encroach on habitat used by elephants (Hoare & du Toit,
move through the region, the peripheries of which are likely 1999; Sitati et al., 2003). The consequences of elephant
to be conflict hotspots. Small villages on the edges of refuges behaviour for communities are often tangible and can
should be a priority for conflict mitigation assistance, with be devastating for individual farmers (Naughton-Treves &
strategies taking into account seasonal and diurnal variation Treves, 2005; Osei-Owusu & Bakker, 2008). As a result
in elephant behaviour, as well as the socio-economic and elephants can elicit fear and anger in rural communities
cultural composition of communities. (Sitati, 2003; Parker et al., 2007), often leading to farmers
persecuting elephants (Parker et al., 2007; Boominathan
Keywords Asian elephant, Assam, crop-raiding, Elephas et al., 2008). Human–elephant conflict undermines support
maximus, human–elephant conflict, India, refuge, spatial for elephant conservation and threatens the future of
analysis elephant populations outside protected areas.
The spatial relationship between elephants, people and
associated socio-economic factors influences the occurrence
and severity of human–elephant conflict. Globally, com-
munities on the periphery of wildlife areas are often more
susceptible to conflict with wildlife, which can be exacer-
bated by a low capacity to deal with the problem (Karanth,
SCOTT WILSON (Corresponding author) and ALEXANDRA ZIMMERMANN* The 2005). Government reports have estimated that 3,555 km2
North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo, Caughall Road, Chester, CH2
1LH, UK.
of Assam’s forests are encroached upon by illegal settlers,
E-mail s.wilson@chesterzoo.org with . 70,000 households (Department of Environment &
TAMMY E. DAVIES St. Andrew’s University, St. Andrew’s, Fife, UK Forests, 2011), and that . 200 million people in India are
NANDITA HAZARIKA EcoSystems–India, Guwahati, Assam, India
dependent on forests for their livelihoods (Forest Survey of
India, 2009). Commonly, low-income marginal or immi-
*Also at: Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford,
Tubney, UK grant communities settle near or within these natural areas
Received 30 May 2012. Revision requested 22 November 2012.
(Treves, 2009). Such communities may lack government
Accepted 6 March 2013. First published online 7 November 2013. support and are limited in their financial capacity to absorb
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149 doi:10.1017/S0030605313000513
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513Human–elephant conflict in Assam 141
FIG. 1 Map of Assam showing
the location of the Sonitpur
and Goalpara study sites. The
rectangle on the inset indicates
the location of Assam in
north-east India.
wildlife-related losses (Nath & Sukumar, 1998; Naughton (1999) identified spatial correlates related to human and
et al., 1999). High levels of human–elephant conflict in elephant density, and Sitati et al. (2003) found the
Assam are therefore unsurprising, given the significant occurrence of conflict and its intensity to be related to
population of elephants in a state in which there has areas of cultivation and proximity to towns and roads.
been major forest encroachment and that has one of Recent studies have found that human–elephant conflict
the country’s lowest per capita incomes. A 2012 census of usually occurs between dusk and dawn (Venkataraman
the wild elephant population in Assam reported 5,620 et al., 2005), that crop-raiding is seasonal (Chiyo et al., 2005)
elephants inhabiting national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and and that conflict is generally highest in close proximity to
reserve forests (The Assam Tribune, 2012); this is . 10% protected areas (Parker & Osborn, 2001). Spatial patterns of
of the estimated global wild Asian elephant population conflict with the Asian elephant, in contrast to the African
(Sukumar, 2003). elephant, have been relatively poorly studied. In Assam,
Mitigating human–elephant conflict is a conservation recent studies have focused on forest loss in relation to
priority and empowering the local community to take human–elephant conflict levels (Chartier et al., 2011) and the
responsibility for the problem is considered one of the most efficacy of different mitigation methods (Fernando et al.,
sustainable solutions (Osborn & Parker, 2003). A com- 2008; Davies et al., 2011) and have made recommendations
munity-centred approach provides opportunities to im- for improved understanding of the spatial factors influen-
prove the attitudes of communities towards elephants and cing human–elephant conflict. Here we focus on the spatial
increases the potential of long-term conservation strategies and temporal patterns of human–elephant conflict in two
such as habitat protection. To develop and direct effective conflict hotspots in Assam, with the aim of informing future
community-led mitigation strategies it is vital to gain a mitigation and landscape management decisions.
thorough understanding of the human–elephant conflict
problem on both a community and regional scale. Study area
The development and improved accessibility of tech-
nologies such as remote sensing and geographical infor- Two sites were selected for data collection (Fig. 1), as part of
mation systems (GIS) have increased the potential for the the Assam Haathi Project, in districts that experience
analysis of spatial and temporal patterns relating to wildlife human–elephant conflict (Goalpara and Sonitpur). Records
management and research. Other studies of human–wildlife of elephant movement patterns in these districts were
conflict, most commonly focused on elephants or large published by Choudbury (1999), who reported irregular and
carnivores, have shown considerable spatial predictability occasional north to south movement in the Sonitpur district
in patterns of crop-raiding or depredation on livestock and regular north to south movement in the Goalpara
(Ahearn et al., 2001; Treves et al., 2004). However, spatial district.
studies of human–elephant conflict, which to date have Existing forest cover in both districts is dominated by
predominantly focused on African elephants Loxodonta moist deciduous forest, although both areas have been
africana, have produced mixed results. Hoare (1999a) did transformed by agricultural expansion and forest encroach-
not identify any strong spatial correlates, Smith & Kasiki ment and contain a mosaic of land use. The production
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513142 S. Wilson et al.
of Sali, or winter rice, dominates in both districts, with field signs were recorded. All field records were collated
harvesting occurring between November and January. by a regional coordinator before being cross-checked and
Two other rice varieties are also grown: Ahu rice (harvested imported to a geodatabase.
between April and June) and Bodo rice (harvested in late Data associated with elephant field records were
June and early July). spatially analysed in relation to other environmental
The 729.6 km2 Sonitpur study site contains 181 villages, variables: distance to the nearest refuge area, water body
which have a mean population of 1,056 people. It borders the and village, and human population and crop density. These
Brahmaputra River to the south and the Himalayan foothills factors have been shown to influence human–elephant
to the north, with Nameri National Park to the north-east conflict (Nyhus et al., 2000; Parker & Osborn, 2001; Sitati
and Sonai-Rupai Reserve Forest and Wildlife Sanctuary et al., 2005). Land-use data were derived from 15 m
to the north-west. The eastern and western borders of the resolution 2008 ASTER satellite imagery that had under-
study area are defined by the Bhareli and Gabharu rivers, gone a supervised classification, and were verified by
respectively. random sampling to be . 80% accurate. Land use was
The Goalpara district is characterized by a flat plain with categorized as water, tea garden, forest, cropland, sand,
riverine beds. The 987 km2 study area contains 187 villages, homestead/human-dominated or scrubland. Based on
which have a mean population of 1,650, and borders the comprehensive field records and observations the areas
Brahmaputra River to the north and the forested Garo classified as forest (all types, including degraded) and tea
Hills to the south. The eastern and western borders of the gardens were reclassified as refuge areas. Refuge areas were
study site are defined by the Dudhnai and Jinjiram rivers, defined as localities to which elephants retreated during
respectively. the day. Elephants were generally undisturbed in such areas;
if the areas were close to human habitation, elephant
Methods presence was usually tolerated.
Human population density was calculated using data
Data collection recorded from village surveys. Crop density (percentage
crop cover per km2) was calculated from a resampled 100 m
Data collection began in 2004 but here we analyse data resolution land-use raster map, with the value of each cell
collected between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008. To based on the number of surrounding 10 × 10 cells classified
establish a reliable and independent reporting system as cropland. For each record of elephant activity, the
(Hoare, 1999b) a team of 33 local community members distances from the nearest refuge, water and village were
were trained as field researchers to record data associated calculated from the digitized data using GIS.
with any elephant activity within the study sites, including
enumeration of any incidents of human–elephant conflict. Data analyses
This third-party enumeration reduced the problem of
exaggeration of losses by the farmers themselves (Siex & All spatial data used the projection WGS 1984 and UTM
Struhsaker, 1999). The area of crop damage was estimated Zone 46N, and were analysed using ArcGIS v. 9.3 (ESRI,
using paced distances, and this value was halved when Redlands, USA) and the Geospatial Modelling Environment
crops had been trampled rather than eaten, because field (Spatial Ecology LLC, Toronto, Canada). To account for
observations indicated that roughly half of trampled environmental factors in areas outside but adjacent to the
crop survives. Each field researcher had a defined area of study sites that could potentially influence elephant activity
responsibility, and a network of researchers provided full within the study areas, a 10 km buffer zone was applied to
coverage of each study site. Researchers visited all areas all land-use data so that these adjacent areas were included
of elephant activity within their area of responsibility. The in analyses. There were no elephant records for the buffer
data collected included quantification of elephant-caused zone but factors such as water bodies, refuge areas and
damage to crops, property or people, herd demographics villages were included. The buffer was not applied over
(if known), and time and location of records. Each record obvious physical barriers to elephant movement, such as the
related to an occurrence of elephants in a specific Brahmaputra River.
community (usually defined by village administrative Initial data analysis compared human–elephant conflict
boundaries) at a certain time. Multiple occurrences of across the two sites and over the 3-year study period.
elephants over a number of days in the same community Conflict data were tabulated with the spatially associated
resulted in separate records for each day. If an elephant herd values for distance to nearest refuge, water body and village,
was present in different localities on the same day a record and human population and crop density. The relationships
for each community was created. If field researchers reached between human–elephant conflict and these variables were
a site and elephants were no longer present, information then explored spatially using GIS and statistically using
was gathered through interviews with local villagers and Spearman’s rank correlation.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513Human–elephant conflict in Assam 143
(a)
Study area boundary144 S. Wilson et al.
FIG. 3 Temporal trends in crop
loss and property damage as a
percentage of the total annual
loss at the two study sites
during (a) 2006, (b) 2007, and
(c) 2008.
Goalpara, 31.6% in Sonitpur). Both study sites also have seasonal peaks. In 2007 and 2008 property damage was
small, dispersed patches of state or privately owned forest, most extensive between May and June and crop damage
usually associated with villages, which are also classified as between August and December. This pattern differed in
refuge areas; these are all , 0.5 km2. 2006 because of severe flooding in Assam, which impeded
Elephant movement follows a seasonal pattern at both the movement of elephants into both study areas and also
study sites (Fig. 3), with elephants occurring annually. This disrupted the usual agricultural calendar. There is a clear
is consistent with previous reports of movement patterns diurnal pattern to human–elephant conflict, with the
for the Goalpara district (Choudbury, 1999) but shows a majority of incidents at both sites occurring between 18.00
shift in the movement pattern for the Sonitpur district and 22.00 (Fig. 4). However, human–elephant conflict
compared with previously reported irregular and occasional begins earlier at the Goalpara study site, with more conflict
elephant movement. occurring between 16.00 and 18.00 compared to the
In total we recorded 1,561 incidents of human–elephant Sonitpur site.
conflict (Sonitpur, 993; Goalpara, 568), and the scale and Using Spearman’s rank correlations we identified se-
financial impact of these are shown in Table 1. The most veral significant relationships between the various human–
commonly reported form of human–elephant conflict was elephant conflict and environmental variables. Distance to
crop damage, followed by property damage. Fig. 2 shows the refuge area was most commonly significantly correlated
spatial distribution of refuge areas in relation to areas where with other variables (Tables 2 & 3); spatial analyses comple-
crop and property damage by elephants were reported. mented these findings. We identified strong spatial relation-
There were too few records of injuries or fatalities to people ships between refuge areas, elephant movement patterns
or elephants to show any meaningful spatial or temporal and the occurrence and severity of human–elephant conflict.
patterns. The temporal patterns of crop and property At both study sites we identified a relationship between
damage are shown in Fig. 3, with both showing distinct the distribution of people and of refuge areas: villages were
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513Human–elephant conflict in Assam 145
TABLE 1 Quantification of the effects of human–elephant conflict
during 2006–2008 in the Sonitpur and Goalpara districts of Assam
(Fig. 1), and in total for both study sites, in terms of crop
depredation, property damage, injuries and fatalities suffered by
people, and injuries and fatalities suffered by elephants Elephas
maximus.
Sonitpur Goalpara Total
2
Area of crop depredation (km ) 1.81 1.24 3.05
Financial losses as a result of 30,265 14,364 44,629
crop depredation (GBP)
No. of properties damaged 442 362 804
Cost of damage to properties 15,042 14,973 30,015
(GBP)
No. of people injured 14 8 22
No. of human fatalities 7 7 14 FIG. 4 Diurnal pattern of incidents of crop loss or property
No. of elephants injured 5 7 12 damage caused by elephants, showing the percentage of
No. of elephant fatalities 0 0 0 incidents that occurred during different time periods.
patterns and the occurrence and severity of human–elephant
predominantly located close to refuge areas. At the Goalpara conflict, with communities adjacent to refuge areas being
study site 75% of all villages were within 1 km of a refuge most affected by human–elephant conflict. There is also
area and 50% were within 400 m. Similarly at the Sonitpur evidence of temporal variance, both seasonal and diurnal,
study site 75% of villages were within 900 m of a refuge and of conflict, as well as potential variance in the severity and
50% were within 500 m. The spatial patterns and scale of nature of the conflict as a result of cultural and socio-
human–elephant conflict showed an even stronger relation- economic differences in communities. These factors all have
ship to refuge, with 90% of all recorded parameters related implications for human–elephant conflict management.
to human–elephant conflict occurring within 700 m of a Water availability often influences the movement of
refuge area. The only exception to this was property damage animals but we found no correlation between water distri-
at the Goalpara study site, where 50% of incidents occurred bution and any of the human–elephant conflict parameters.
within 200 m of a refuge area and 90% within 1.48 km. The main movement of elephants at both study sites occurs
Seemingly contradictory to these findings is the strong between protected areas and the Brahmaputra River through
positive correlation at both study sites between the areas of a highly transformed human-dominated landscape but
crop loss as a result of elephant depredation and the distance where water is widely available in rivers and numerous
to the nearest refuge area, indicating that the area of crop water bodies. Water influences human-population density
damage per incident increases as crop depredation occurs and crop density, as expected for rice-based agricultural
further from refuge areas. systems, but it is the distribution of refuge areas that
In Goalpara the mean herd size was 18.8 ± SD 9.48 influenced elephant movement and thus human–elephant
(range 1–50), composed of 1.6 adult males, 3.1 adult females, conflict patterns in this study.
0.6 juveniles, 4.0 calves, and 3.0 individuals of unknown The nature, as well as the distribution, of refuge areas
age or sex. At the Sonitpur study site the mean herd size may influence human–elephant conflict. The refuge areas at
was 11.1 ± SD 17.2 (range 1–130), composed of 0.5 adult males, our study sites were generally of a low value in terms of food
0.4 adult females, 0.6 calves, and 8.0 individuals of unknown availability and nutritional quality for elephants. Remaining
age or sex. forest patches were commonly state or community owned,
planted with commercial species, and with low levels of
Discussion biodiversity. Although tea gardens provide important re-
fuge areas, they contain little or no food resources for
In landscapes that have been transformed by anthropogenic elephants. We recorded no incidents of elephants consum-
influences such as expansion of agriculture, isolated popu- ing tea. Demographic data showed that incidents of
lations of species often occur, persisting largely in remnants human–elephant conflict tended to involve small herds
of suitable habitat. Populations of wide-ranging species containing sub-adult individuals and calves. This could be
such as elephants, however, may continue to move through indicative of a nutritional necessity for crop depredation
such landscape mosaics, and their movement patterns are and the raiding of granaries. Crop-raiding behaviours
often influenced by the spatial distribution and suitability in particular have more commonly been recorded amongst
of remaining refuge areas. Our findings indicate relation- male elephants in other regions and attributed to a high-risk
ships between refuge area distribution, elephant movement foraging strategy employed to gain a breeding advantage
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513146 S. Wilson et al.
TABLE 2 Spearman’s rank correlations* between factors potentially influencing the occurrence and scale of human–elephant conflict at the
Sonitpur study site.
Human Distance Human Elephant Property
Distance Distance population Crop to nearest Crop loss death or death or damage
to refuge to water density density village (area) injury injury (count)
Distance to refuge
Distance to water −−−
Human population density ++ NS
Crop density +++ −− +++
Distance to nearest village NS +++ −−− −−−
Crop loss (area) +++ −−− NS +++ −−
Human death or injury NS NS NS NS NS NS
Elephant death or injury − NS NS NS NS NS NS
Property damage (count) −− + NS NS NS −−− +++ NS
*+, positive correlation (P , 0.05); ++, positive correlation (P , 0.01); + + +, positive correlation (P , 0.001); −, negative correlation (P , 0.001);
− −, negative correlation (P , 0.01); − − −, negative correlation (P , 0.05); NS, no significant correlation
TABLE 3 Spearman’s rank correlations* between factors potentially influencing the occurrence and scale of human–elephant conflict at the
Goalpara study site.
Human Distance Human Elephant Property
Distance Distance population Crop to nearest Crop loss death or death or damage
to refuge to water density density village (area) injury injury (count)
Distance to refuge
Distance to water −−−
Human population density +++ −−−
Crop density +++ −−− +++
Distance to nearest village +++ −−− NS +++
Crop loss (area) +++ NS NS +++ NS
Human death or injury NS NS NS NS NS NS
Elephant death or injury + NS NS NS NS NS ++
Property damage (count) +++ NS NS +++ NS +++ +++ +++
*+, positive correlation (P , 0.05); + +, positive correlation (P , 0.01); + + +, positive correlation (P , 0.001); −, negative correlation (P , 0.001);
− −, negative correlation (P , 0.01); − − −, negative correlation (P , 0.05); NS, no significant correlation
(Sukumar & Gadgil, 1988; Sukumar, 1991). The drivers for fit with both of the above suggested functions, and human–
depredation of crops and granary stores by elephants elephant conflict occurs mostly between evening and dawn.
require further investigation but these results may indicate This diurnal resting pattern has been observed in other
that mitigation methods themselves (the protection of crops elephant populations experiencing conflict with humans
and granaries), though removing the direct risks to people (Venkataraman et al., 2005). Elephants at the Goalpara
and elephants inherent in human–elephant conflict situa- study site become active earlier and anecdotal field reports
tions, may place nutritional stress on elephant populations. suggest that this difference in behaviour is because of
Management strategies should consider fostering attitudes variations in how communities respond to elephants. At the
of acceptance towards low-level crop loss rather than Sonitpur study site, particularly around the tea gardens,
attempting to negate all elephant crop depredation, and communities respond more quickly and aggressively to
should focus on the management of refuge areas that have elephants emerging from refuges, thus limiting crop and
a food resource value for elephants. property damage. The delayed occurrence of human–
Our findings indicate that the primary function of refuge elephant conflict at the Sonitpur study site may be a result
areas for elephants is not nutritional but to enable elephants of the proactive approach of communities to protecting
to avoid contact, and conflict, with people. Refuge areas may their crops and properties, or it may be because elephants
also have a physiological role, such as the provision of emerge from refuge areas later, when they feel more secure.
shade to assist thermal regulation (Kinahan et al., 2007). The tea garden communities are largely composed of
Elephants leave the refuge areas in the evening, which would immigrant labourers, and such communities may not have
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513Human–elephant conflict in Assam 147
experience of dealing with elephants or share the local warn against misinterpreting parameters such as area of
tolerant attitude towards elephants, which is influenced by crop loss when trying to quantify human–elephant conflict.
religion. These communities live on the edge of tea gardens, Small losses may have a disproportional effect on a
which function as refuge areas, and are therefore situated subsistence farmer. Similarly, minor but frequent instances
in high-risk areas for human–elephant conflict. Their of elephants entering villages and damaging property may
more aggressive nature towards elephants, combined with have much larger psychological and economic effect than
a greater occurrence of property damage compared to crop major but infrequent occurrences, particularly in remote,
depredation (as they are primarily labourers rather than marginalized communities.
farmers), suggests that they pose a greater physical threat to Whereas spatial patterns of elephant movement and
elephants. These cultural variances between communities, human–elephant conflict are influenced by the location of
both in terms of attitudes towards elephants and the type of refuge areas, seasonal patterns are more strongly influenced
conflict experienced, need to be considered when engaging by the agricultural calendar. Crop depredation peaks
communities in conservation. between August and December, when the dominant Sali
For all communities those most affected by human– rice crop is reaching maturity or is ready for harvest. This
elephant conflict are situated within 700 m of a refuge area. period also coincides with an increase in property damage,
These communities tend to have smaller than average as elephants target stored crops. Sali rice is the major staple
populations, with poorly protected homesteads and no subsistence crop and the primary source of income for most
electricity. They are commonly dependent on small-scale rural families in the study areas, and crop depredation by
subsistence agriculture and live in areas of less than optimal elephants is the most common trigger of human–elephant
growing conditions. This finding is supported by other conflict in Assam and throughout most of India (Lenin &
studies that have also found that conflict with elephants Sukumar, 2011). There is a smaller seasonal peak of crop
increases in intensity with proximity to forests (Kiiru, 1995; damage by elephants between May and July, when the Ahu
Nath & Sukumar, 1998; Naughton et al., 1999; Nyhus et al., and Bodo varieties of rice reach maturity, although crop
2000; Lahkar et al., 2007; Riddle, 2007). Sukumar (1989) losses are lower during this period. This may be a reflection
found that herds tended not to venture further than 1 km of the lower availability of these crops compared to the more
from a forest boundary. widely grown Sali rice. Property damage peaks during this
However, not all communities in areas of low crop and period, when it is likely that granaries will contain not only
human density suffer from human–elephant conflict, and newly harvested crops but also remains of the Sali harvest,
there is a lack of correlation between these factors in our thus providing a more beneficial target for foraging
results. This indicates that there are several areas of low elephants. There is a significant correlation between the
human population density where elephants are present but occurrence of injuries and fatalities among villagers and
where there is no significant conflict. These communities periods of increased property damage, when elephants are
are not in close proximity to a refuge area but are in areas entering villages. The results of this study could be used
through which elephants travel between refuges. There may to inform strategies to enable communities to persist
also be an increased likelihood of communities that have alongside elephants, and to provide guidance for land-
been targeted by elephants previously being targeted again scape-scale management that will help sustain elephant
in future raids (Sitati et al., 2005; Stewart-Cox & Ritthirat, populations. Elephant movements are influenced by the
2007).We found that communities in areas of higher crop location of refuge areas, and manipulation of such refuge
density, which are further from refuges, suffer significantly areas could be used to manage where elephants and co-
larger areas of crop loss per incident of elephant depredation mmunities come into contact. Large-scale projects to create
than communities close to refuges. However, communities corridors for elephant movement are possible with sufficient
near refuge areas are subject to a much higher frequency stakeholder involvement but when this involves rewilding or
of crop damage by elephants. This may indicate different relocation of human populations it can be politically
crop depredation behaviours dependent upon access to controversial and expensive. Corridors of tolerance may
refuge areas. Field observations indicate that elephants often be a more feasible alternative, where communities have
employ a hit-and-run strategy, in which refuge areas are sufficient support and capacity to mitigate and tolerate the
used as a safe retreat. In areas of higher crop density, which degree of elephant-related loss incurred.
tend to be further from refuge areas, the increased area of At a community scale an understanding of the spatial
crop damage per incident may be a direct result of the higher and temporal patterns of human–elephant conflict is
density of crops, which facilitates the consumption of more necessary for effective elephant conservation but must be
crops in a short time. Areas of high crop density, perhaps combined with an understanding of cultural and socio-
indicating more commercial rather than subsistence plots, economic influences. Marginalized communities close to
may also be more difficult to protect, and elephants may feel refuge areas are a priority for assistance but mitigation
more secure and remain for longer periods. These results and community engagement methods will need to be
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513148 S. Wilson et al.
tailored to specific communities and sufficiently dynamic to and Goutam Narayan of EcoSystems–India, Evette Astbury
cope with seasonal variations in conflict situations. Effective and Sam Earle of Chester Zoo, and Lucy Tallents of
mitigation will increase tolerance towards elephants and WildCru, Oxford University.
reduce the risk of aggressive retaliation. Community en-
gagement can also facilitate better management of negative References
effects on existing refuge areas, such as encroachment or
illegal wood harvesting, and proactive measures to increase A H E A R N , S.C., S M I T H , J.L.D., J O S H I , A.R. & D I N G , J. (2001) TIGMOD:
the quality and quantity of available refuge areas, such as an individual-based spatially explicit model for simulating tiger/
human interaction in multiple use forests. Ecological Modelling,
reforestation projects. Crop losses as a result of depredation
140, 81–97.
by elephants can be reduced by using solar electric fences or B O O M I N AT H A N , D., M O H A N R A J , N., A Z I Z , T. & D E S A I , A. (2008)
spotlights (Davies et al., 2011) but protection of granaries Management of the Asian Elephant in the Nilgris and Eastern
should also be a strong consideration, particularly at times Ghats: Human–Elephant Conflict in Somwarpet Subdivision
of high risk. (Madikeri Forest Division). WWF AREAS, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Alternative livelihoods should also be a focus of C E N T R A L S T AT I S T I C S O F F I C E (2010) S.I. No. 1-32 Statement: Cross
State Domestic Product at Current Prices. Directorate of Economics
community-based conservation, removing dependence on and Statistics of Respective State Governments and for All-India,
crops susceptible to depredation. Cash crops such as chilli, Delhi.
turmeric and ginger, which elephants do not consume, can C H A R T I E R , L., Z I M M E R M A N N , A. & L A D L E , R. (2011) Habitat loss
diversify the harvesting periods and mitigate the risk of and human–elephant conflict: does a critical threshold exist?
elephant depredation. Oryx, 45, 528–533.
C H I Y O , P.I., C O C H R A N E , E.P., N A U G H T O N , L. & B A S U T A , G.I.
Each community’s requirements are different, but
(2005) Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by elephants: a response
this study shows that temporal and spatial analysis, to changes in forage quality or crop availability? African Journal
when combined with an understanding of culture, socio- of Ecology, 43, 48–55.
economics and attitudes, can provide valuable information C H O U D B U R Y , A. (1999) Status and conservation of the Asian
for conservation initiatives at both community and elephant Elephas maximus in north-eastern India. Mammal Review,
29, 141–173.
landscape scales.
D A S , K.C. (2009) Assam Land and People. Commerce College,
The Assam Haathi Project has now expanded throughout Guwahati, India.
Assam. Selection of new project villages has been greatly D A S , R.K. (2011) Census of India 2011: Provisional Population
aided by spatial analysis of elephant movements and conflict, Totals Paper 1 of 2011, Assam Series 1. Http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-
with particular attention to the refuge areas utilized by, and prov-results/data_files/india/paper_contentsetc.pdf
[accessed 7 February 2013].
influencing the behaviour of, local elephant populations.
D AV I E S , T.E., W I L S O N , S., H A Z A R I K A , N., C H A K R A B A R T Y , J.,
A comprehensive community engagement process with D A S , D., H O D G S O N , D.J. & Z I M M E R M A N , A. (2011) Effectiveness
all new project villages continues to be the first and most of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants.
critical component of the conflict mitigation process. Conservation Letters, 4, 346–354.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF
A S S A M (2011) Assam Forests at a Glance. Government of Assam.
Acknowledgements Http://www.assamforest.in/forestGlance/assamForest_glance.php
[accessed 25 August 2011].
This work was conducted by the Assam Haathi Project F E R N A N D O , P., W I K R A M A N AY A K E , E., W E E R A KO O N , D.,
(www.assamhaathiproject.org), which is a project of the J AY A S I N G H E , L.K.A., G U N AWA R D E N E , M. & J A N A K A , H.K. (2005)
North of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo) and Perceptions and patterns of human–elephant conflict in old and
EcoSystems–India. The project was funded by the UK new settlements in Sri Lanka: insights for mitigation and
management. Biodiversity Conservation, 14, 2465–2481.
government’s Darwin Initiative and Chester Zoo. We are F E R N A N D O , P., K U M A R , A.M., W I L L I A M S , C., W I K R A M A N AY A K E , E.,
thankful to the following field monitors who assisted with A Z I Z , T. & S I G H , M. (2008) Review of Human–Elephant Conflict
data collection: Ajoy Kumar Dey, Bapkon Mili, Biplab Mitigation Methods Practiced in South Asia. AREAS Technical
Kumar Sundi, Birbal Limbu, Dhan Das, Dipankar Bora, Support Document Submitted to World Bank. WWF—World Wide
Dipu Borah, Jayanta Kumar Nath, Kartik Koch, Narottam Fund for Nature, Kathmandu, Nepal.
F O R E S T S U R V E Y O F I N D I A (2009) State of the Forest Report 2009.
Sahani, Narayan Nath, Nichendra Nath, Raju Bagh, Rana
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India,
Udia, Rudra Chetra, Sawan Tanti, Brillian Chandra Marak, Dehradun, India.
Bhagabat Rabha, Devananda Rabha, Dibyajyoti Rabha, G OV E R N M E N T O F I N D I A (2013) List of Tea Gardens in the Sonitpur
Dimbeswar Nath, Dugdha Nath, Dwipen Rabha, Kushal District. Http://sonitpur.gov.in/list_of_tea_gardens.htm
Nath, Rubul Rabha and Subhash Rabha. We are also [accessed 7 December 2012].
H O A R E , R.E. (1999a) Determinants of human–elephant conflict
grateful for coordination assistance and advice from
in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 689–700.
Joydeep Chakrabarty, Bhaben Hazarika, Anjan Baruah, H O A R E , R.E. (1999b) A Standardized Data Collection and Analysis
Lakhi Kumar Nath, Anjan Kumar Nath, Ripunjoy Nath, Protocol for Human–Elephant Conflict Situation in Africa.
Apurba Basumatary, Dhruba Jyoti Das, Parag Jyoti Deka IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513Human–elephant conflict in Assam 149
H O A R E , R.E. & D U T I OT , J.T. (1999) Coexistence between people S I T AT I , N.W. (2003) Human–Elephant conflict in the Maasai Mara
and elephants in African savannas. Conservation Biology, 13, dispersal areas of Transmara District. PhD thesis, University of
633–639. Kent, Canterbury, UK.
K A R A N T H , K.K. (2005) Addressing relocation and livelihood concerns: S I T AT I , N.W., W A L P O L E , M.J., S M I T H , R.J. & L E A D E R -W I L L I A M S , N.
Bhadra wildlife sanctuary. Economic & Political Weekly, 40, (2003) Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict.
4809–4811. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 667–677.
K I I R U , W. (1995) The current status of human–elephant conflict S I T AT I , N.W., W A L P O L E , M.J. & L E A D E R -W I L L I A M S , N. (2005)
in Kenya. Pachyderm, 19, 15–19. Factors affecting susceptibility of farms to crop-raiding by African
K I N A H A N , A.A., P I M M , S.L. & V A N A A R D E , R.J. (2007) elephants: using predictive model to mitigate conflict. Journal of
Ambient temperature as a determinant of landscape use in Applied Ecology, 42, 1175–1182.
the savanna elephant, Loxodonta africana. Journal of Thermal S M I T H , R.J. & K A S I K I , S. (1999) A spatial analysis of human–elephant
Biology, 32, 47–58. conflict in the Tsavo Ecosystem, Kenya. AfESG Report. IUCN/SSC,
L A H K A R , B.P., D A S , J.P., N AT H , N.K., D E Y , S., B R A H M A , N. Gland, Switzerland.
& S A R M A , P.K. (2007) A Study of Habitat Utilization Patterns of S T E WA R T -C O X , B. & R I T T H I R AT , J. (2007) Mitigating human–
Asian Elephant Elephas Maximus and Current Status of Human elephant conflict in Asia: a new initiative in Thailand. In Mitigating
Elephant Conflict in Manas National Park within Chirang-Ripu Human–Elephant Conflict: Case Studies from Africa and Asia.
Elephant Reserve, Assam. A Technical Report Prepared by (eds Walpole, M. & Linkie, M.) pp 13–22. Fauna & Flora
Aaranyak. International, Cambridge, UK.
L E I M G R U B E R , P., G A G O N , J.B., W E M M E R , C., K E L LY , D.S., S U K U M A R , R. (1989) The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management.
S O N G E R , M.A. & S E L I G , E.R. (2003) Fragmentation of Asia’s Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UK.
remaining wildlands: implications for Asian elephant conservation. S U K U M A R , R. (1991) The management of large mammals in relation
Animal Conservation, 6, 347–359. to male strategies and conflict with people. Biological Conservation,
L E N I N , J. & S U K U M A R , R. (2011) Action Plan for the Mitigation of 55, 93–102.
Human–Elephant Conflict in India. Asian Nature Conservation S U K U M A R , R. (2003) The Living Elephants: Evolutionary Ecology,
Foundation, Bangalore, India. Behaviour, and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
N AT H , C.D. & S U K U M A R , R. (1998) Elephant–Human Conflict in S U K U M A R , R. & G A D G I L , M. (1988) Male–female differences in
Kodagu: Southern India. Asian Elephant Research and Conservation foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Animal Behaviour, 36,
Centre, Bangalore, India. 1233–1255.
N A U G H T O N , L., R O S E , R. & T R E V E S , A. (1999) The Social Dimensions T H E A S S A M T R I B U N E (2012). Elephant population on the rise: Census
of Human–Elephants Conflict in Africa: A literature Review and Case report. Http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?
Studies from Uganda and Cameroon. IUCN/SSC African Elephant id=mar3112/state06 [accessed 7 February 2013].
Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya. T R E V E S , A. (2009) The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife
N A U G H T O N -T R E V E S , L. & T R E V E S , A. (2005) Socio-ecological around protected areas. In Wildlife and Society: The Science of
factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding Human Dimensions (eds M.J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, P.J. Brown, D.J.
by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In People and Decker & E.A. Duke), pp. 214–228. Islands Press, Washington,
Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence (eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood DC, USA.
& A. Rabinowitz), pp. 252–277. Cambridge University Press, T R E V E S , A., N A U G H T O N -T R E V E S , L., H A R P E R , E.K., M L A D E N O F F , D.
New York, USA. J., R O S E , R.A., S I C K L E Y , T.A. & W Y D E V E N , A.P. (2004) Predicting
N Y H U S , P.J., T I L S O N , R. & S U M I N AT O , R.T. (2000) Crop-raiding human–carnivore conflict: a spatial model derived from 25 years of
elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National data on wolf predation on livestock. Conservation Biology, 18, 114–125.
Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx, 34, 262–274. U N I T E D N AT I O N S , D E P A R T M E N T O F E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I A L
O S B O R N , F.V. & P A R K E R , G.E. (2003) Towards an integrated approach A F F A I R S , P O P U L A T I O N D I V I S I O N (2011) World Population
for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review Prospects: The 2010 Revision. CD-ROM ed.
of current research. Oryx, 37, 1–5. V E N K A TA R A M A N , A.B., S A A N D E E P , R., B A S K A R A N , R., R O Y , M.,
O S E I -O W U S U , Y. & B A K K E R , L. (2008) Human-Wildlife-Conflict: M A D H I VA N A N , A. & S U K U M A R , R. (2005) Using satellite
Elephant Technical Manual. Food and Agricultural Organization telemetry to mitigate elephant–human conflict: an experiment
of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. in northern West Bengal, India. Current Science (Bangalore),
P A R K E R , G.E. & O S B O R N , F.V. (2001) Dual season crop damage by 88, 1827–1831.
elephants in the Eastern Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Pachyderm,
30, 49–56. Biographical sketches
PARKER, G.E., OSBORN, F.V., HOARE, R.E. & NISKANEN, L.S. (eds)
(2007) Human–Elephant Conflict Mitigation: A Training Course S C O T T W I L S O N is the conservation officer at Chester Zoo,
for Community-Based Approaches in Africa. Participant’s Manual. coordinating the zoo’s field conservation activities (www.chesterzoo.
Elephant Pepper Development Trust, Livingstone, Zambia and org). He assisted Alexandra Zimmermann in developing the Zoo’s
IUCN/SSC AfESG, Nairobi, Kenya. Assam Haathi Project (AHP) in 2004. T A M M Y D A V I E S worked as a
P R O J E C T E L E P H A N T S Y N C H R O N I Z E D C E N S U S (2002) Asian Nature conservation researcher for the AHP and is currently studying
Conservation Foundation. Http://www.asiannature.org/resources/ sustainable livelihoods in the Solomon Islands. N A N D I T A
statistics.htm [accessed 27 November 2012]. H A Z A R I K A manages the AHP in Assam, where she also works on a
R I D D L E , H. (2007) Elephant response units (ERU). Gajah, 26, 47–53. variety of sustainability projects and with the Pygmy Hog
S I E X , K.S. & S T R U H S A K E R , T.T. (1999) Colobus monkeys and coconuts: Conservation Programme. A L E X A N D R A Z I M M E R M A N N is the senior
a study of perceived human–wildlife conflicts. Journal of Applied conservation scientist at Chester Zoo and is currently researching
Ecology, 36, 1009–1020. conflict patterns between jaguars and people.
© 2013 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 49(1), 140–149
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 10 Jan 2021 at 04:07:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313000513You can also read
